If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(DOD Buzz)   If you having tilt-rotor problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 Ospreys but the switch ain't one   (dodbuzz.com) divider line 27
    More: Misc, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, V-22 Osprey, textron  
•       •       •

5461 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Jun 2013 at 7:40 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



27 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-06-12 07:41:49 AM
I first read that headline as "tit-rotor problems". Get THAT image out of your heads.
 
2013-06-12 07:42:44 AM
Definition of insanity.
 
2013-06-12 07:43:48 AM
They're just doing this to piss the Japanese off.
 
2013-06-12 07:59:40 AM
I think the aircraft is too maintenance intensive, its ship deck footprint is too large for the lift capability you get in return (same as a CH-53E but with less lift capacity) and too restricted in flight operations (If your LZ has things like dry grass on it it can set it on fire).

I just don't really think that the higher speed and longer range are good trade off. I figure building a Pave Low version of the CH-53E/K to replace the CH-46 would have been a better investment. Cheaper but and to maintain because of a greater commonality of repair parts plus a higher availability rate because they would be easier to maintain. Plus the greater lift capacity means fewer sorties to get the same amount of means and material ashore. Range can be extended withe in flight refueling, so that just leaves the speed issue

I think the Osprey is a good aircraft for Special Ops but not the Marine Corps.


CH-53K

media.defenceindustrydaily.com
 
2013-06-12 08:07:42 AM

hasty ambush: I think the aircraft is too maintenance intensive, its ship deck footprint is too large for the lift capability you get in return (same as a CH-53E but with less lift capacity) and too restricted in flight operations (If your LZ has things like dry grass on it it can set it on fire).

I just don't really think that the higher speed and longer range are good trade off. I figure building a Pave Low version of the CH-53E/K to replace the CH-46 would have been a better investment. Cheaper but and to maintain because of a greater commonality of repair parts plus a higher availability rate because they would be easier to maintain. Plus the greater lift capacity means fewer sorties to get the same amount of means and material ashore. Range can be extended withe in flight refueling, so that just leaves the speed issue

I think the Osprey is a good aircraft for Special Ops but not the Marine Corps.


CH-53K

[media.defenceindustrydaily.com image 850x1012]


The Osprey is faster, can carry more personnel, and has a larger patrol radius than the helicopters.
 
2013-06-12 08:08:08 AM
Phrogs Phorever!!!!
 
2013-06-12 08:09:51 AM
Osprey is a death trap. I'd say they should scrap the lot... But I'm afraid to see the pork-barrel project they'd replace it with. Perhaps its better to keep them around as a reminder of what happens when you let lobbyists design aircraft.
 
2013-06-12 08:15:10 AM
In April, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced in Tel Aviv the first foreign purchase of the Osprey for the Israeli special forces. The number of Ospreys Israel would receive was not announced but it was believed to be at least five for $70 million apiece, which would likely come out of the more than $3 billion in military assistance the U.S. gives Israel annually.


What the hell man? trillions in debt and giving away billions to a full developed country so they can buy more weapons? I do not see how this type of thing is able to remain in place.
 
2013-06-12 08:36:44 AM
Both the Osprey and the CH-53K are noisy farks, I don't see how they can sneak up on anyone.
 
2013-06-12 08:44:27 AM
had an Osprey fly over the house, we heard them when they were miles out.
 
2013-06-12 08:56:41 AM
www.masanasiangrill.com

... except 99 ...
 
2013-06-12 09:00:44 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: hasty ambush: I think the aircraft is too maintenance intensive, its ship deck footprint is too large for the lift capability you get in return (same as a CH-53E but with less lift capacity) and too restricted in flight operations (If your LZ has things like dry grass on it it can set it on fire).

I just don't really think that the higher speed and longer range are good trade off. I figure building a Pave Low version of the CH-53E/K to replace the CH-46 would have been a better investment. Cheaper but and to maintain because of a greater commonality of repair parts plus a higher availability rate because they would be easier to maintain. Plus the greater lift capacity means fewer sorties to get the same amount of means and material ashore. Range can be extended withe in flight refueling, so that just leaves the speed issue

I think the Osprey is a good aircraft for Special Ops but not the Marine Corps.


CH-53K

[media.defenceindustrydaily.com image 850x1012]

The Osprey is faster, can carry more personnel, and has a larger patrol radius than the helicopters.


It is faster and has greater ranger but does not have greater lift or troop capacity  than the helicopters I mentioned


The  CH-53E will hold up to 55 troops  and can sling load up to 16 tons. Is capable of inflight refueling


The CH-53K wiil also carry up to 55 troops and can sling load  up 17.5 tons  Also will have in flight refueling


The  MV-22   (which takes up the same amount of deck space as the CH-53E)

can carry a max of 32 troops and  lift a max of about 7.5 tons.

Plus it can set your LZ on fire.



As I stated before it is maintenance intensive which impacts availability rates, It takes up a lot of space in the hangar deck, on the flight deck and on an LZ but gives so little asset lift capability in return (yes better than the CH-46 but at a much higher costs) Bother the CH-53 E and K would be cheaper give the Amphibious group more lift capability and really more flexibility in terms of potential useable LZs. Not every potential future conflict war is going to be in the sand and rocks of the Middle and Near East.

The Corp's money would have been better spent on replacing the CH-46 with the CH-53E/Ks . A kit could have been also made to make the aircraft readily changeable from a lift/logistics supply to a troop assault mode (Think Pave Low) Armor and weapons could be mounted withe little impact on overall troop lift capability. The difference in cost (when considering both unit costs and costs per flight hour)would allow the purchase of more a CH-53E/Ks.

Heck you could probably save enough money to also address the need to upgrade the AAV-7s after the EFV debacle... and don't even get me started on the fiasco the is the USS America it is not an Amphibious assault ship but a damn light carrier for the Navy.
 
2013-06-12 09:13:56 AM
Stupid article, they misspelled Marine Core.
 
2013-06-12 09:45:03 AM
A cousin of mine became an Osprey flight mechanic last year, so getting a kick.
 
2013-06-12 09:57:21 AM
They should use the VTOL that Section 9 uses.
www.rotaryaction.com

And spider tanks....
 
2013-06-12 11:05:17 AM

chewd: Osprey is a death trap.


Post-redesign citiation needed.

The previous posts about ability when compared with upgraded CH-53s makes valid points, but the Osprey of today is no more a deathtrap than any other helicopter.
 
2013-06-12 11:20:18 AM

spentshells: In April, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced in Tel Aviv the first foreign purchase of the Osprey for the Israeli special forces. The number of Ospreys Israel would receive was not announced but it was believed to be at least five for $70 million apiece, which would likely come out of the more than $3 billion in military assistance the U.S. gives Israel annually.


What the hell man? trillions in debt and giving away billions to a full developed country so they can buy more weapons? I do not see how this type of thing is able to remain in place.


Because they're an ally in a very dangerous part of the world? Because when Iran crosses the line on its nuclear development program, Israel can be depended on to do the things America is politically unwilling to do?
 
2013-06-12 12:39:13 PM

MythDragon: They should use the VTOL that Section 9 uses.


download.xbox.com
 
2013-06-12 04:34:24 PM

hasty ambush: and don't even get me started on the fiasco the is the USS America it is not an Amphibious assault ship but a damn light carrier for the Navy.


Umm i was on the USS America CV-66 and yes it was a carrier, also yes it was a nightmare. Or are you talking about something else? Because they have been chopping it up for razor blades for some time now.
 
2013-06-12 04:36:36 PM
Ahh this thing, an LHD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_America_%28LHA-6%29

Yeah that's not really the USS America. That's the USS United States of America.
 
2013-06-12 05:19:32 PM
oh, u.s. military. is there any overpriced boondoggle you won't buy?
 
2013-06-12 05:38:36 PM

hasty ambush: AverageAmericanGuy: hasty ambush: I think the aircraft is too maintenance intensive, its ship deck footprint is too large for the lift capability you get in return (same as a CH-53E but with less lift capacity) and too restricted in flight operations (If your LZ has things like dry grass on it it can set it on fire).

I just don't really think that the higher speed and longer range are good trade off. I figure building a Pave Low version of the CH-53E/K to replace the CH-46 would have been a better investment. Cheaper but and to maintain because of a greater commonality of repair parts plus a higher availability rate because they would be easier to maintain. Plus the greater lift capacity means fewer sorties to get the same amount of means and material ashore. Range can be extended withe in flight refueling, so that just leaves the speed issue

I think the Osprey is a good aircraft for Special Ops but not the Marine Corps.


CH-53K

[media.defenceindustrydaily.com image 850x1012]

The Osprey is faster, can carry more personnel, and has a larger patrol radius than the helicopters.

It is faster and has greater ranger but does not have greater lift or troop capacity  than the helicopters I mentioned
The  CH-53E will hold up to 55 troops  and can sling load up to 16 tons. Is capable of inflight refueling
The CH-53K wiil also carry up to 55 troops and can sling load  up 17.5 tons  Also will have in flight refueling
The  MV-22   (which takes up the same amount of deck space as the CH-53E)can carry a max of 32 troops and  lift a max of about 7.5 tons.Plus it can set your LZ on fire.

As I stated before it is maintenance intensive which impacts availability rates, It takes up a lot of space in the hangar deck, on the flight deck and on an LZ but gives so little asset lift capability in return (yes better than the CH-46 but at a much higher costs) Bother the CH-53 E and K would be cheaper give the Amphibious group more lift capability and really more flexibility in terms ...


Are you going to vertically insert Marines into a hot LZ again any time soon? The way things are trending, everything's a light footprint, and involves leveraging friendly locals. Also, with the increased anti-ship missile threat, the Osprey gives you a much better over-the-horizon capability. The Osprey can do two long-range missions in the time it takes an H-53 to do one. Anyway, they're not replacing the 53s with Ospreys, they're replacing 46s, which are slower and smaller.
 
2013-06-12 07:38:19 PM
And with the money we save on education / infrastructure job creation, we can ensure poor graduation rates, limited employment opportunities, and a generally uneducated and disenfranchised lower class which will keep the military's grunt banks full into the foreseeable future.  99 NEW WHIRLYBIRDS WHEEEE!  AMERICA fark YEAH!


www.earthexplorertoys.com
 
2013-06-12 09:43:25 PM
I just want to see the quad-rotor version they used in transformers...reminded me of tiberian sun
 
2013-06-13 08:00:14 AM
USS America is an amphibious assault ship?

Who the fark comes up with ship names these days?

That name should only be used for a carrier.  No, a REAL carrier.
 
2013-06-13 04:40:16 PM

mbillips: hasty ambush: AverageAmericanGuy: hasty ambush: I think the aircraft is too maintenance intensive, its ship deck footprint is too large for the lift capability you get in return (same as a CH-53E but with less lift capacity) and too restricted in flight operations (If your LZ has things like dry grass on it it can set it on fire).

I just don't really think that the higher speed and longer range are good trade off. I figure building a Pave Low version of the CH-53E/K to replace the CH-46 would have been a better investment. Cheaper but and to maintain because of a greater commonality of repair parts plus a higher availability rate because they would be easier to maintain. Plus the greater lift capacity means fewer sorties to get the same amount of means and material ashore. Range can be extended withe in flight refueling, so that just leaves the speed issue

I think the Osprey is a good aircraft for Special Ops but not the Marine Corps.


CH-53K

[media.defenceindustrydaily.com image 850x1012]

The Osprey is faster, can carry more personnel, and has a larger patrol radius than the helicopters.

It is faster and has greater ranger but does not have greater lift or troop capacity  than the helicopters I mentioned
The  CH-53E will hold up to 55 troops  and can sling load up to 16 tons. Is capable of inflight refueling
The CH-53K wiil also carry up to 55 troops and can sling load  up 17.5 tons  Also will have in flight refueling
The  MV-22   (which takes up the same amount of deck space as the CH-53E)can carry a max of 32 troops and  lift a max of about 7.5 tons.Plus it can set your LZ on fire.

As I stated before it is maintenance intensive which impacts availability rates, It takes up a lot of space in the hangar deck, on the flight deck and on an LZ but gives so little asset lift capability in return (yes better than the CH-46 but at a much higher costs) Bother the CH-53 E and K would be cheaper give the Amphibious group more lift capability and really more flexibili ...


With its smaller lift capacity it would have to do two to one sorties.  I would have replaced the CH-46 with pave low versions of the CH-53. if I am going to take up that much deck space with a new aircraft.
 
2013-06-13 04:43:34 PM

Weidermeijer: USS America is an amphibious assault ship?

Who the fark comes up with ship names these days?

That name should only be used for a carrier.  No, a REAL carrier.


The LHA USS America It does not even have a well deck, it is no amphibious assault ship.  It should be designated a CVL.   It is an example of Naval/Marine aviation having too much influence in the Marine Corps
 
Displayed 27 of 27 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report